Rating: 
Summary: historically important
Review: historically important for the filmwork/effects more so than the story. this film is highly racist though in it's portrayals of African Americans but I think everyone should see this film for the previous reasons alone. Also check out The Birth Of A. Nation soundtrack by the political band "Vampire Nation" which is very well done and a must have.
Rating: 
Summary: Reason behind the review
Review: Let it be known to anyone who cares enough to read this. "Birth of a Nation" (in my opinon) is a terrible movie. Simply because it's total purpose and goal was the visual destruction of a group of people. No one deserves to be depicted the way Afican Americans are in the film. It was given the rating of number four becuase it successfully gets its point across. It is an accurate, honest part of the history of America (American cinema as well) and it should never be forgotten.
Rating: 
Summary: Disturbingly powerful
Review: I can't ignore the technical and artistic advances that were made in this film, but it is also the most difficult movie I've ever sat through. I was so very angry and repulsed by Griffith's vision for two reasons: 1) his vision itself was repulsive, and 2) Griffith had packaged it too skillfully for it to be overlooked.
Rating:
Summary: Impossible to ignore; not necessary to see
Review: "Birth of a Nation" is one of the most historically important films ever made. It was the first feature length film that was taken seriously. It made 10,000,000$ during its' first run in 1915 (the equivalent today would be about $400 million). Most of the major Hollywood studios were made with BOAN money earned by distributors. It was the first film to affect history and not just mirror it (it gave new life to the KKK). It pretty much established: the marketing method of "first run films", "event" films, evening length films (3 hours), the historical epic. How can one ignore a film that created so much of what the film industry is today? The film is clearly racist (despite Griffith's hard-to-be-believe protestations that he had no idea people would interpret the film as racist) but it is too important to be erased from history.
All of that being said, is it an enjoyable or even a watchable film today? Well, some of it is. A lot of it isn't. This is a film from 1915 and its age shows. Griffith's editing of the ride of the Klan is superb and would be difficult to improve upon but his greatness as a director has more to do with his being "first" with so many film achievements or "the biggest" (for then) rather than being "best". The acting is stagy, the storyline is creaky, etc. Can someone say Victorian melodrama? Worth watching for film historians, film buffs, but most others will be bewildered abotu what all of the fuss was about.
Rating:
Summary: A grand, powerful lie that whitewashed hate and racism
Review: This movie is a must see, for many reasons. As historical cinema, Griffith boldly used film in a manner that seems decades ahead of the rest of the film industry, not until Gone With the Wind do you see another movie that attempts to take on history as subject matter so grandly and powerfully as this one. And, even more than Gone With the Wind, it was a movie about history that shaped history and made history. It was a movie that caused lynching and rioting around the country, and its glorification of the Klan propelled the resurgence of the KKK in the late teens and 20s of the last century. Through the spectrum of 80 plus years, we can see the racism and fiction and the lies that are twisted into this story. But the visuals are powerful and well done, even by today's technical standards - one can imagine the stir they were in the 19teens, sort of like a Stars Wars, Godfather 1&2, Patton and Dirty Dozen rolled into one grand flick of the times. It is Amerikkka's "Triumph of the Will", unintentional propaganda, but powerful propaganda nonetheless. Like "Triumph", beautiful. And horrible.
Rating:
Summary: The Birth of the Cinema, The Rebirth of the Klan
Review: D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" is one of those infuriating films that you have trouble either praising or lambasting. Because of my schizophrenic views on this film, I will do a bit of both. This landmark silent film concerns two families, the northern Stonemans, and the southern Camerons. The Stonemans come to visit their friends the Camerons at their plantation in the South. They are given a tour of the mansion and of the cotton fields where we see the slaves toiling happily(!) away, glad to serve their white masters. Since I'm from Canada where a lot of runaway slaves ended up, this grates with my views. Then the Civil War errupts. The Stonemans return to the North and the two families find themselves on opposite sides of the battlefields. Griffith shows himself here to be very technically advanced, far ahead of most directors of his age. The battle scenes must have been quite stunning to audiences of 1915. Some of the shots of the war remind me of the Matthew Brady photographs that Griffith apparently studied. After the war, President Lincoln promises to treat the South "as if they had never been gone". Unfortuately, he is assasinated in another stunning sequence that is remarkable for its accuracy, as well as for the way Griffith cross-cuts between scenes to build suspense. Now Austin Stoneman is President. Stoneman enlists the help of an evil power-hungry mulatto named Silas Lynch. Together, the two proceed to do such evil things as give blacks the vote, give blacks the right to marry whites, and make blacks equal to whites. Apparently, Griffith has something against equality in America. Stoneman and Lynch also disenfranchise white voters, and terrorize anyone who won't support them. Frankly, I think it was blacks who had a hard time voting in Reconstruction and blacks who were terrorized, but this doesn't seem to bother Griffith. It gets worse. As newly freed blacks start rampaging across the South, Ben Cameron forms the Ku Klux Klan to save the white South from free blacks, carpetbaggers, and black rapists. The Klan is described as a heroic band of white knights that saved the South from shame. I always thought the Klan brought shame to the South, rather than saving them from it. Yes, there were carpetbaggers who exploited blacks during Reconstruction, but supporting the Klan against carpetbaggers is like supporting Al-Quaeda against the Soviets. As for black rapists, it was more common for whites to rape blacks then the other way around. How does Griffith think that light skinned blacks came to be? Rape has to do with power, something blacks at that time didn't have, even after the war. The ending is very disturbing. It shows both Northerners and Southerners embracing the Klan and bringing order back to the South by putting blacks back in their places. Griffith refers to this in the titles as "North and South reunited in defence of their Aryan birthright". Besides being a twisting of history, this is extremely offensive. "The Birth of a Nation" is unquestionably one of the most important films ever made. It was Hollywood's first great epic, its technical superiority and commercial success established films as the arform of the twentieth century. The extreme length (2 1/2 hours) was unprecedented at the time as well as its attention to period detail. It is widely considered to be the greatest landmark in American cinema. However, its racist sentiments have always tainted this film's reputation. The film had very real repercussions, as the Klan revived itself that very year and remained active throughout the twenties. As late as the seventies, this film was used as a recruitment tool. This is why I cannot give this film five stars. While some would argue it deserves a five star rating on account of its influence on films, I believe that to judge a film, one must judge it on both its technical proficiency AND its message. I can't forget that little intro with Griffith and Walter Huston where Griffith says that "the Klan at that time was needed and served a purpose". Griffith's politics have tainted even his best films. A film's message count as much to a film's rating as much as its technical proficiency. Therefore, I am giving "The Birth of a Nation" three stars.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent early film
Review: This film was very well done. You must consider the standards of the day, however. For a silent picture, the plot was pretty easy to follow and it was filmed using as much creativity that was available technically at the time. While this film is often regarded as racist, it is still a well done picture and worth the addition to your collection.
Rating:
Summary: "The Birth of a Nation" vs. "The Godfather"
Review: How many people criticize "The Godfather" for showing members of the Mafia as family men? So why such the controversy? Both of these films are masterpieces, and both at least partly due to their ability to show the viewer a different perspective of things. I would argue that "Birth of a Nation" does so more strongly and realistically, which is perhaps why so many people despise it. "Godftaher" shows killing as a business, "Birth of a Nation" shows killing for a purpose, even if we do not agree with their cause. To me the climax with the Ku Klux Klan is just as powerful as the baptism sequence in "Godfather"--"Godfather" is powerful on a more emotional level, whereas here it is more on intellectual. in the "Godfather" climax we no longer see Michael as the hero, or even as a likeable presence. He is evil. In "Birth of a Nation" it is different. The ending is equally as horrifying as it is triumphant. The members Ku Klux Klan are heroes to the very end, and we are celebrating with them and their victory even as we are shocked at our own emotions.
Most people well-educated in cinema will agree that the film was a technical wonder of its day and still holds up as an incredibly well-made film. It is interesting to me how little sound does for the medium of film in most cases. Take almost any movie made in the past decade and it will be crammed with senselessly dull dialogue, over-the-top sound effects, and an emotionally manipulative musical score. Here, most of the scenes contain very few title cards, but we still somehow know just what the characters are talking about. The acting is certainly melodramatic--almost all silent acting is, has to be--but that doesn't detract from it a bit. Contrary to what most actors today seem to think, melodrama isn't nearly as bad (when properly handled, anyway) as cardboard acting. However, the film probably shouldn't be the viewers' first silent film (silent comedy would be a much more suitable introduction--"The General" or "The Gold Rush").
The film is not only technically or historically important, it is an example of epic storytelling and a surprisingly intellectually stimulating one.
Rating:
Summary: Very often misunderstood film
Review: To understand this film, you must understand D.W.Griffith, and see his other films. Then, you will realize that he hopes to improve society by reproducing on film the good and the bad, and the horrors of the human condition. He is not racist, he is showing racism. There is a difference. See a few more of his films before making up your mind on this one, and you will see that he was a humanist, above all else, exposing the human condition to bright light and close up inspection.
Rating:
Summary: Long, but enjoyable!
Review: This is the only and LONGEST silent movie I have ever set through. It was a stepping stone in the movie industry during it's day. The movie takes place during the Civil War as two families friendship starts to crumble. What is interesting is the blatant racism, and historical innacuracies in this film, when we reach the Reconstruction Era, shortly after the Civil War. More than that, many people in 1916 believed in the history portrayed, thanks to "truth claim" by President Wilson. The movie claimed that after the Civil War, black troops took over the South, raping white women, harrassing others, and that the only hope was the KKK. Blatantly false and racist, of course. It was the other way around: Blacks were still treated as inferiors and they were tormented by the KKK. Good movie, but pretty long.
| 
